Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen:

I disagree with your characterization completely. I find that Condi Rice has in fact refuted much of what Clarke has said. And the Bush team certainly should be allowed to question why Clarke’s commentary has changed so dramatically. He is now asking the public to believe what he says today, despite the glaring contrast to what he said 18 months ago.

Clarke says he was essentially lying, or smoothing over the truth, back then. If so, then we know he is capable of massaging the truth—-so why should we not question whether that is what he is doing at this time.

I notice how much blame he puts on the Bush team, though the Bush team had only 8 months (versus 8 years for Clarke under the previous administration) to deal with the problem. And I don’t suggest we throw ALL of his information out—there is much we can learn from his experience, and much we can do to change our tactics.

Yet we also must filter his information with the knowledge that the larger the issue becomes, the more money he stands to make. And that he was disgruntled with the percieved lack of respect he got from the Bush administration.

Stephen, Clarke attacks not only Bush, but also Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, George Tenet, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller, and you focus on how Bush fights back, claiming that Bush is the attacker. I suppose you might also see a potential rape victim, who in defending herself injures her assailant, as an attacker of sorts also. How silly.

I think the administration had no choice but to “peel the onion” on this one, and I also think that it is a shame. Clarke has some good criticism on our efforts to combat terror, and had he left the politics and profits out of it I think he could have been an asset.

But you don’t go writing a “tell all” against a sitting President on a topic that is front page. And you don’t say things like “Condoleezza Rice acted like she didn’t know anything about Al Qaeda.”

In Clarke’s case he reaps what he sows.

Joe, Stephen’s point was that many of the Bush team’s attacks on Clarke have been focused around his book-sales motivation, his bitterness at being demoted, and other subjects that are more indictments of his character than they are factual refutations.

Also, I find it not only believable but also to a certain degree ethically defensible that Clarke would stretch the truth in public on behalf of the administration he works for. He himself said that he’s done as much for every administration he’s worked for in the past.

Republicans often chastise the loyal opposition for simply being critical. In fact, many people in both parties think it’s important to NOT be critical of the President or his policies during a time of war. While I generally disagree with this concept, I do have sympathy with the idea that skilled government officials who have the ability and power to do good within the government should probably try not to advocate any positions (either in the government or in public) that would jeapordize their careers and cause them to lose that power to do good things. I expect good government officials to at least attempt to compromise in order to maximize their effectiveness.

Clarke, a 30-year veteran, resigned after 2 1/2 years under Bush, apparently realizing that his ability to do good things within the system was like banging his head against a wall.

Telling the public that Clarke has made politically safe statements in the past (like his brief prefunctory praise for the President in his resignation letter) does not count as a refutation of his statements. Rice, Cheney, McClellan, etc, can release as many documents and quotes from Richard Clarke from the time when he was under the employment of the Bush Administration as they want. It’s well known that Bush runs a tight ship and does not tolerate dissent, especially in public. His team is almost religiously required to be unified in their public statements. It’s absolutely inconceiveable that Clarke would say anything critical of the Bush administration during his tenure under Bush. I take all of his statements delivered in his official capacity under any administration, especially Bush’s, with a boulder of salt.

I have a very strong suspicion that O’Neil and Clarke’s revelations are just the tip of the iceberg.

I saw an episode of Frontline that alleged that since Bush’s inauguration there has been a kind of mass exodus from the various intelligence agencies from and the State Department, where seasoned veterans, often with 20-30 years service, have either resigned in disgust/frustration or have been forced out due to political conflicts. Their stories will be told someday.

I predict that, perhaps a generation from now, there will be shocking (perhaps posthumous) horror stories from this Administration. Especially from Colin Powell, a man whose discomfort at perpetuating the Bush Administration’s lies is even now visibly palpable whenever he speaks.

When the internal documents and stories from this presidency get released (in the far, far future, no doubt) I suspect the picture will be very dark indeed. The historical record of the American leadership during the opening years of the 21st century will be a picture of incompetance, ideological single-mindedness, and bald political opportunism. Some of us can clearly see the outlines of this picture already. The rest of you, I wager, will be deeply embarassed to tell your grandchildren you voted for George W. Bush.

-Cf

joebag—

I disagree with your characterization completely. I find that Condi Rice has in fact refuted much of what Clarke has said.

You are correct that the administration has refuted some of Clarke’s statements, however, Clarke has responded to the administration’s criticisms extremely well. In terms of corroborated facts, Clarke’s story is WAY ahead of the Bushies’.

And the Bush team certainly should be allowed to question why Clarke’s commentary has changed so dramatically. He is now asking the public to believe what he says today, despite the glaring contrast to what he said 18 months ago.

Yes, they should be allowed to question this. In fact, Clarke addressed this very issue in his sworn testimony before the 9-11 commission yesterday. As he explains, while he was employed by the Bush administration, he was asked to present as many positive facts and as few negative ones as he could. This is something that any administration would desire, so this is not an indictment of Bush, however it explains the difference between statements Clarke made as an employee of the Bush administration and those he made after his resignation.

Clarke says he was essentially lying, or smoothing over the truth, back then. If so, then we know he is capable of massaging the truth—-so why should we not question whether that is what he is doing at this time.

He does not say that he lied. He emphasized the positive aspects of the truth and deemphasized the negative aspects. This is spin. Politics is loaded with spin. All politicians and their surrogates must be able to “masssage the truth.” They all do it. Remember Rumsfeld saying that he never said “imminent threat”? Oh wait, that’s just a blatant lie. That’s not a good example. How about when Rice said that she was never given an Al-Qaida plan by Clarke? Nope, shoot. That’s a lie too. Well, I’m sure if you look, you can find plenty of times when the Bush administration simply “massaged the truth.” It’s a little trickier, though, because usually they just come right out with a lie.

I notice how much blame he puts on the Bush team, though the Bush team had only 8 months (versus 8 years for Clarke under the previous administration) to deal with the problem.

He blames the Clinton administration AND HIMSELF as well. He emphasizes the failures of the Bush administration, because IN THE 8 MONHTS, Bush did not prioritize terrorism as strongly as Clarke believed (based on his 30 years of experience) he should have.

Also, comparing the attack on Bush to the attack on a rape victim is one of the most disgusting ploys I’ve heard yet. Bush is being criticized (“attacked”) for the way he did his job (President of the United States…so he’s subject to such scrutiny). A rape victim is attacked based on nothing he/she has done. Bush is open to criticism. Any President is. This demonstrates the point made by Stephen, though….

the Bush people are on the offensive, denying access, defaming their accusers, and making any criticism of Bush’s policies seem motivated by corruption or weak-mindedness.

George, you’re right that it’s unfortunate that Clarke’s opportunism clouds the legitimate points he has. Still, he may have calculated this: after we sum the shocking revelations about the Administration with Clarke’s own skeletons, the net effect will either be (a) the Bush administration will be run out of office, or (b) Bush gets re-elected, but is chastised enough by the exposure to devalue the influence of its neocon ideologues.

Either way, Clarke’s story needed to be told - and examined.

It also seems to me that there is no way he could have “left politics out of it” more than he already has without going right back to being an Administration shill. He’s already pre-emptively refused a Kerry administration job. What else could he have done to de-politicise the topic? How can you allege that the administration in power is misguided without it being “political”? Or is this another example of how the Bush administration characterizes any criticism as either unpatriotic or, in this case, “political”. As if there was no substance to the allegations at all.

So he can’t be apolitical. So let’s say he takes the “profit motive” out instead. Let’s say he publishes his story in a series of articles in Foreign Affairs magazine. Or better yet, imagine he publishes his story on his own free public blog. Would his stories have gained the kind of press coverage (and scrutiny) they have had so far? Would the debate over America’s preparedness for terror be as vigorous? Would the questions, both by the media and by the public, about the Bush Administration’s competance be as pointed? No, no, and no.

My point is that by publishing a commercial book, and by promoting said book on 60 Minutes and countless other media venues, Clarke has ensured that his insights will make it into the public consciousness and into the larger political debate. And that, I think, is the most important goal of all.

-Cf

Sometimes the truth is, in fact, ugly.

-Cf

If he calculated it then I think he calculated wrong.

I think Clarke is probably a decent guy who got led down this path by Simon and Schuster (not so decent guys). My understanding of the book (I might pick it up for my vacation next week) is that it is pretty even handed in its criticism of both administrations and has some good insight into our past failures against terrorism. I believe that’s what the member of the commission said about his 16 hours of testimony as well.

However, it is obvious that there is sensational stuff thrown in to sell books such as the comment about Dr. Rice, and it is even more obvious that someone is playing politics here with the timing.

So the hounds get to eat tonight; Clarke should have expected nothing less.

George, you keep suggesting that Clarke is surprised at the White House backlash against him. I doubt he’s surprised.

-Cf

While I quake at the thought of Clarke making a profit along with S&S when I go to buy this book, I will nonetheless. While I shudder at the thought of the timing of this obvious and politically motivated release, I’ll read the book in its entirety and try to look past party politics to the important issue here.

Do we have an obligation to support anyone with information that they believe the American people should be aware of that isn’t detrimental to national security? Yes. Why wouldn’t we? They may have political motivations, but as written above… who doesn’t that writes or speaks about politics? Let’s get all the information out there. Discredit the information with facts if it can be done. Discredit the source with facts if it can be done. Just give me a break from personal attacks and critique to cloud the issue.

I really want to believe that Bush’s Administration, based on their response to 9/11 with policy and action, have always cared deeply about the threat of terrorism. However, I’m finding it more difficult as every day goes by that he and his people fail to share some concrete details that can refute Clarke’s position.

Regardless… he should be heard. If we’re not listening… we’re not learning.

Now.. having said that… I think it’s important to step back and take a look at the hypocritical nature of some of this questioning of Bush’s administration. How long is it going to take for someone to ask the Press why they aren’t asking each other how they could criticize a President for not acting after they’ve criticized him for acting? uh-uh.. before you say, “but he didn’t need to act in Iraq if he wanted to combat terror”, as the facts seem to be unfolding.. I agree. The man acted and removed the Taliban government while many said, “warmonger”. Can we just decide whether we want to critize action or inaction before we paint ourselves into a corner of hypocracy?

No, I’m not suggesting that Clarke is surprised. He’s a big boy and knew the game he was getting into, so I’m sure he was ready for the heat.

I think he might have gotten a nudge into the ring, however, by people who have a political agenda, a profit motive, or both.

I like this debate because most of the people who have joined in it are trying to find a piece of truth to hold onto in regard to 9/11. I am reading this book and I am expressly amazed at the even handed way Clarke doles out criticism. He is far more analytical about his critique of our foreign policy mistakes made over the last two decades than anyone else whose writings I have read on those times. Thanks for writing the piece Stephen, its a good look at the information process that we are into in this election season.
Henri

I agree Henri clarke seems to critisize all who deserve it. and he isn’t very critical of peoples beliefs, just their actions, he also seems to be understanding of their faults. kudos to clarke for being open and not backing down when the onslaught began.

But look—what’s being argued here is that it’s not fair to fight back. That you can’t attack an attack dog. That if your name is George Bush, your responsibility is to fall to your knees and accept whatever blows the other side wants to dish out. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not going to happen—as convenient at that might be for election campaign of a Democratic candidate for president.

Clarke’s ad hominem remarks about Condi’s “blank stares,” about the Bush administration not caring about terrorism (as if ANY president EVER would not do everything in his power to stop the events of 9-11 if they had any inkling of what was to come) are attack politics of the most vicious kind.

I’ve had many gripes about Democratic presidents in the past(and complain regularly about things Bush does as well), but I don’t doubt for one second that any American politician—Clinton, or even Dennis Kucinich—hell, even Maxine Waters—would just ignore credible and specific warnings of anything on the scale of 9-11. Clarke does all but throw 3,000 bloody bodies on Bush’s doorstep and point his finger—and Bush is to just accept this without putting up a defense?

I guess it’s “just not fair” to point out that Clarke’s story doesn’t match things he said in many interviews and public statements before he began trying to sell a book? That aside from possible financial motives, he has scores to settle with an administration that demoted him in rank (and Rice in particular?) That blaming an administration that was in office eight months over an administration that was in office in eight years (and in which he had a more substantial role—and therefore more substantial responsibility) is not suspect at best and blatantly open to the charge of attempting to shift appropriate blame? That it’s somehow underhanded to point out that the September 11 plot had already been planned in Hamburg and was in its logistical final stages while George Bush was still governor of Texas and Bill Clinton’s chief political initiatives were child-safety seats and midnight basketball?

Stephen makes some valid points in general about the worrisome drift towards attack politics in the campaign. None of us should be happy about the substitution of vitriol and smear for dialogue and debate. But please. We just emerged from a Democratic primary season in which we witnessed a race to the bottom in terms of personal demonization and attack-rhetoric unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Bush and his allies kept their mouths shut the entire time, and I can understand Democratic frustration at no longer having a clear field of attack, their desire to blame Republicans for what they’ve been doing all along.

For the record (and in an effort to excercize a measure of rhetorical restraint almost never seen on the other side), I don’t think anybody should be blamed for the book’s timing. It does seem that the White House had a hand in delaying it, and anyways, the timing is better than it could have been (politically, the Republican Convention or late October would have been worse). At least now, there’s time to answer the charges—which has now been more than adequately done. Clarke will return to his much-deserved obscurity long before things really heat up. He’s had his moment in the spotlight and now can take his pile and retire to Florida—buy that yacht or whatever it is he hopes to get out of this.

The man acted and removed the Taliban government while many said, “warmonger”.

That’s interesting, Cappy. I don’t remember anyone being against removing the Taliban. Certainly not the Democrats. The way I remember it, people were critical that Bush didn’t move fast enough.

I just remembered this from Sidney Blumenthal’s 2003 book, “The Clinton Wars”.

Don Kerrick, a three-star general and outgoing deputy national security advisor, overlapped for four months with the new Bush people. He submitted a memo for the new National Security Council warning of the danger of terrorism. “We are going to be struck again,” he wrote. But as Kerrick explained to me, he received no answer to his memo. “They didn’t respond,” he said. “They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn’t see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as. They were concentrated on what they thought were higher priorities than terrorism.” The Principles meeting of national security officials took up terrorism only once, after constant pressure from Clarke, on September 4, 2001,and at that meeting they discussed using unmanned Predator drone spy aircraft, but no decision was made. “Unfortunately,” said Kerrick, “September 11 gave them something to focus on.”

Martin — “At least now, there’s time to answer the charges—which has now been more than adequately done.”

Really? There was a list I posted of Claims made by the Administration that were debunked very effectively. I’d like to see you respond point by point to this list, if you claim that Clarke’s claims have been refuted. Basically, this is the progression that I’ve seen:

1) Clarke makes criticisms (of both Administrations)
2) Bush Administration attacks Clarke on a number of points
3) Clarke et al effetively respond to those points

Notice that there is no step 4. That’s what I’m looking for. I’d like to see:

4) Bush Administration responds to refutations in point 3.

Unfortunately, I’m a bit busy right now, so I can’t recompile the list. It’s in the “Presidential Obsession” thread. Additionally, there are other things that I’d like to add to it… but those 5 points will be a good starting point for you.

Yes, Lee…. it’s true.. I made it up. Just testing the waters of intelligence here before I go labeling any bookmarks on my browser ;).

Martin, Bush has more than just attack politics at his disposal, if he truly worthy of defense. He has the truth at his side in that case. That he cannot or has not confronted Clarke’s story with one of their own, indicates to many that they do not have an effective counterstory.

Whatever you believe, Martin, I have seen no effective explanation for what Clarke alleges. I have seen no explanation in rebuttal that explains the crucial facts. Have they refuted or explained away why the Justice department buried counterterrorism under violent crimes? Can they show me all the real, policy deciding, information sharing, department heads-in-attendance meetings they had in the time before 9/11? Why are there no lists of contradictory or mitigating facts out there, countering Clarke’s assertions? Where are these differences of stories, and if they exist are they anything more than quibbles designed to decieve those naive about the inner workings of government and bureacracy? Until Bush and his people can do more than just spread innuendo, Clarke’s facts will remain the only substantive facts of record. The Bush administration have rationalized, disputed, and flat out denied the quality of this evidence, but they have not confronted it, given the opportunity.

Right now, the Bush administration is defending itself from manifest fact. No WMDs have been found- fact. No terrorist training camps in Sovereign Iraqi territory, no official evidence showing an organizational connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq’s government- both facts. The fighting was fiercer than troops were told to expect- Fact. The inhabitants of Southern Iraq did not rise up and overthrow those in power on first sight of American troops, and remained reserved for some time- Fact. Most soldiers killed in Iraq have died during the occupation- fact. The newly imported terrorists continue to bomb at will- fact.

Yet Bush and the rest of his people continue to insist that they are right, and if not right, then not actively wrong. But as the evidence continues to cast doubt on the adminstration’s position, people begin to wonder whether the truth even matters to them.

The truth matters to me, and to a lot of people. We do not accept ideology as a substituted for good sense, for honest, open open government. We are not simply Democrats or Republicans, but Citizens who do not like seeing their country humiliated and disgraced because one group of people cares more about holding on to power and fulfilling agendas.

Only lies and evasions require this much time to prepare. What Clarke knows, those who run this government know. They hold the records, they keep the files on these things, and if they are not able to promptly refute Clarke’s allegations on a substantial factual basis, then the question has to be raised as to whether the facts are on their side at all.

Listen to this recent statement by Senator Frist cribbed from a CNN story:

“Frist also accused him of making a “theatrical apology” to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not “his right, his privilege or his responsibility” to do so.”

What the hell is this supposed to mean? How does the 1st Amendment not apply to this form of speech? A personal appology is inappropriate? A recognition of the truth that everyone knows - that the government failed its citizens on 9/11? This is somehow wrong?

This sort of behavior is only wrong to the Bush Administration and it’s extremist allies, who are more interested in acolytes than advisors. This is just one more wacko-extremist point that frankly scares the crap out of most of us Americans.

(note, I’m not saying that all Bush allies are extremists - just some, like Frist, Delay, etc).

Stephen, in every case, your list of “facts” (except for the lack—so far—of WMD stockpiles. which all the defense agenices of the world need to answer for as well) are either opinions or matters which do not require a “defense” on the part of the administration. I will try to be brief in my responses.

“No terrorist training camps in Sovereign Iraqi territory”: Who ever said there were? Are you thinking of Afghanistan? If someone in the admininstration did make this highly unpublicized suggestion, and you demand to see terrorists in Iraq, look no farther than the fedayeen, the training airplane for mock-hijackings, the Achille Laurel (sp? mastermind or for that matter the entire murderous Bathaast regime.

“No official evidence showing an organizational connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq’s government:” Who is on the record asserting this “official” connection? William Safire, colunminst for the NYT? The Bush administration has gone out of its way to say there was no “official connection.”

“The fighting was fiercer than troops were told to expect.” What troops were told to expect any such thing? Anybody here been in the military? Even for you jarheads, this requires no refutation. American soldiers are never told to head into combat with “Don’t worry, this is going to be fun, easy and good for your health.”

“The inhabitants of Southern Iraq did not rise up and overthrow those in power on first sight of American troops, and remained reserved for some time.” This one stumps me. I wish I knew why overthrowing Saddam required that terrified citizens rise up as one in the face of those who have intimidated, oppressed and slaughered them for decades. Honestly. Why not just ask why the Jews in Bergen-Belsen didn’t rise up and overpower their guards on D-Day?

“Most soldiers killed in Iraq have died during the occupation.” Yes. And? Does that mean that occupation is inappropriate after winning a war—that America is supposed to turn over the keys to Baghdad to surviving Bathaasts and stop defending the Iraq civilian authority from thugs and murderers?

“The newly imported terrorists continue to bomb at will.” At will? You make it sound so easy. They also continue to be shot, blown up and burned alive. That’s when they aren’t being interdicted and arrested (often turned in by average Iraqis)—and all in Iraq instead of America.

Martin - “No official evidence showing an organizational connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq’s government:” Who is on the record asserting this “official” connection? William Safire, colunminst for the NYT? The Bush administration has gone out of its way to say there was no “official connection.”

Excuse me? Talk about revisionist history! I’ve heard Cheney himself say that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together and cooperating many, many times. This is, of course, “counter-factual.”

Oh, what the hell. I’ll just repost the list of facts that I want refuted by the Administration, or their proponents. I know you’ll take me up on it… otherwise, as I said before, Clarke wins the argument, since there have been no responses to his excellent refutations of the Administration’s claims. And I gotta tell you, based on the substance of these claims, the lack of refutation by the Administration makes them look likek liars. Here’s the list:

CLAIM #1: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I’ve learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.

CLAIM #3: “[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things.” - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: “Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President’s principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.” - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #4: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft’s ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft’s predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” - Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #5: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #6: “Well, [Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: “The Government’s interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or “CSG”) chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period.” - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #7: “[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring.” - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and ‘I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.’ Neither Cheney’s review nor Bush’s took place.” - Washington Post, 1/20/02

Gaelen, imagine a courtroom where the prosecuting attorney got to cross examine himself pretending to be you, that you were asked to respond to the cut and paste bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point? That’s really the game you’re proposing here.

The problem with that list is that it contrasts fragments of information totally divorced from their contexts. There’s no way to meaningfully discuss any of this stuff without exhaustively studying and cross-referencing the documents and transcripts they’re lifted from, comparing timelines, looking at the larger picture, considering alternate explanations, etc.

And that would be even before we’ve evaluated the authority of the sources. I notice that may of the so-called facts (such as the one attached to “Claim 4” are just interpretations about even more unnamed and indeterminate sources—“Documents indicate… etcetera” made by newspaper sources. Also much of the discrepancy between so-called facts and so-called claims obviously relies on pre-existing disagreements about what these facts and claims even are—i.e, was Bush’s response to 9-11 “aggressive?” What policies were “effective,” etcetera. Discrepancies sometimes which even hinge on potential disagreements about the definitions of words.

Also, many of the so called claims are not important anyway, and rebutting them with “facts” is just a diversion from the real issue of Clarke’s credibility. To cite just one example, so what if Clarke wanted to have a top level meeting with “principals” to fill their ears with his sudden desire, after eight years in a higher ranking position in which he did nothing, to fight back against terrorists and warn of threats? The President has a very thorough security briefing every morning, based on the best available intelligence, thank you very much, and doesn’t have to click his heels and salute every time a self-important underling decides he wants a meeting.

Look, Iraq and Nazi Germany shared one aspect with each other, besides a fascist dictator: bureacracy. They keep records. Nobody’s perfect at removing these records. Not businesses, not governments. It is these documents that David Kay was following. When you have a nation the size of California, with a government to suit, things get written down. They might not write down the exact thing you’re after, but they may write down things like who they paid to bury things, where those people are, or even the fact that an operation went on in a certain location.

You can’t just hide things anywhere, you know. We’re speaking, most likely, of thousand gallon tanks, of tons of munitions. That requires certain kinds of vehicles to transport, and certain kinds of infrastructure to enable that transport. Certain kinds of earth moving equipment would be necessary if these munitions or tanks were being buried. These things don’t just happen on their own- it takes a massive investment of time and effort to pull those kinds of jobs. This means witnesses, pay records or witnessable distributions of cash, use and transport of equipment- all leads that can be followed.

Why haven’t we found these things, then, with a years worth of time? Why has Bush reduced, not increased the budget of those search for the WMDs, with them being the important link, the crucial offense?

In case you haven’t noticed, WMDs figured greatly in our justification for the war to the UN, for the justification of the last inspection regime. Bush spoke constantly about disarmament as the motive for the war. You don’t recall this? Here’s a sampling of his justifications, as sampled from years worth of press conferences and speeches.

And yes, the fighting was worse than anticipated. They anticipate the locals rising up against their oppressors. The Bush administration heard this from Iraqi exiles, and believed this. Soldiers were not told to expect the fierce resistance from paramilitary Fedayeen firing from out of the crowd, from out of the population. They were told to expect that their invasion would destabilize rather than entrench the government, that the armies would surrender to American control, not simply melt away into the population. This part is crucial because it deprived soldiers of people they could have conscripted into repairing the devastation created by the war, and also because it allowed certain loyalists to escape the custody of the US army. If they had been interned in POW camps, they wouldn’t have been out bombing, right? Bush’s stripped down invasion force also plays in here as it it meant that elements of our invading force couldn’t peel off and take care of these issues.

It also meant that a great deal of the law and order of the country slipped away, and vanished. If we had been able to quickly establish patrols and martial law, preventing the sense of anarchy that came after the fall of the Baathist regime, we could have both reassured the Iraqi civilians and made it clear that there wasn’t going to be any insurgency tolerated. Bush’s people were told by General Shinseki that this would be a necessary part of executing this war, but Bush’s top defense department harshly rejected his advice.

The Occupation should have been the calmer time, the time in which the nation was resigned to its fate. The violence should have been occasional, not daily as we are seeing it here. Daily violence is a sign that we don’t have that control, and if terrorist attacks are so difficult as you say, we have to ask why are they are still capable of unleashing such attacks almost daily.

As for your theory that these people are being prevented from American attacks by this, I find it unlikely. If they can execute an attack in Western Europe, I doubt we’re all that safe.

“No terrorist training camps in Sovereign Iraqi territory”: Who ever said there were? Are you thinking of Afghanistan? If someone in the admininstration did make this highly unpublicized suggestion, and you demand to see terrorists in Iraq, look no farther than the fedayeen, the training airplane for mock-hijackings, the Achille Laurel (sp? mastermind or for that matter the entire murderous Bathaast regime.”

We only encountered the Fedayeen in our invasion of Iraq. There has been no evidence of Iraq terrorism since 1993.

As for calling the whole regime terrorist, That’s certainly a huge stretching of the term, one that broadens the definition so much as to make it useless.

Your arguments here have been mainly evasive of the real points. You’re perpetually redefining what certain terms mean, sidestepping the facts on what your administration has actually done and said, and rationalizing any uncomfortable facts. When do your people finally plant both feet on the ground, and confront the facts? We’ve found no infrastructure of terrorists, no stockpiles of weapons as described by Colin Powell, no evidence of a connection as alleged by Bush, and no connection between the two of high enough quality to be distributed unadulterated to the media. The Best you got are unreliable leaked documents, and the fallacious assumption that the former presence of something unaccounted for means it’s still there. Other than that, the formal justifications for this war, as presented to the UN and the rest of the world can not be substantiated, and that will make future military action against real threats much more difficult.

> I notice that may of the so-called facts (such
> as the one attached to “Claim 4” are just
> interpretations about even more unnamed and
> indeterminate sources—“Documents indicate…
> etcetera” made by newspaper sources.

These documents actually exist, Martin. Care to look at them?

Reno’s 2000 Plan

Ashcroft’s 2001 Plan

Reno’s plan makes terrorism the #1 priority. Ashcroft’s doesn’t even mention it. It’s right there in black and white.

-Cf

Okay, I looked at the documents—and the only thing impressing me about them is the lengths Dems have to go to put dubious negative spins on ambiguous data.

The origninal question was whether or not terrorism was a top priority in each administration, not whether a single agency, only one part of the entire security appartus (which also includes the CIA, multiple departments in Defense and even the State Department) ever issued documents to the effect of stating their supposed priorities. We can all make lists stating our priorities—I can say my number one priortiy ist to aquire a million dollars, but that isn’t gonna change my bank balance when I go to the ATM.

We already agree that before 9-11 terrorism wasn’t much on the map for either administration—don’t we? Or do you really want to maintain that the Clinton administration fought Al Qaida tooth and nail for eight years and we just never heard about because all the media wanted to talk about were Clinton’s mid-night basketball and Hillarycare inititiatives. I remember hearing nothing from Reno about her so-called highest priority and hearing a great deal about her determination to deport Evian Gonzalez.

What does a comparison of documents show? It certainly doesn’t show that Reno ever did a damned thing about fighting terrorism. If she fought it so hard, how was 9-11 even possible?

Martin, nobody is arguing that Clinton did a good job fighting terrorism. He didn’t. We all know that. In fact Clarke’s book (from what I understand) is pretty clear about that, too. Similarly, very few people (and nobody of any importance) is alleging that Bush could have prevented 9/11.

The allegation that is generating controversy is, quite simply, that the Bush administration decreased the United States’ focus on international terrorism. While Clinton was doing precious little, Bush was doing significantly less.

Clinton Policies = failure
Bush Policies = extraordinary failure

There are many theoretical ways in which 9/11 could have been prevented (and the fight against terrorism in general could have been more aggressive) but it would have required a complete transformation of the political climate within the US and throughout the world. This transformation, unfortunately, did not occur until September 11, 2001.

Clinton was president for eight years and his administration didn’t do nearly enough to fight terrorism. But he was making an effort to do what he could, given the aforementioned political climate. He was very clear about re-aligning our national security, intelligence, and law enforcement policies towards fighting terrorism. The late 90’s saw the initial stages of this major transformation. This transformation occurred slowly, and was frequently opposed by a large number of people within and outside of the government. As has been revealed in the 9/11 commission testimony, the subject of terrorist threat didn’t really get a lot of traction - and in fact was often met with resistance and ridicule - within the government’s military, intelligence, and law enforcement bureaucracies… and within non-governmental PACs, think thanks, etc.

Bush’s defenders keep saying that Clinton “spent eight years doing nothing”. Yet I haven’t heard about any examples of where Clinton was criticized by his opponents for not doing enough to fight terrorism. Never. If Clinton had it so wrong in the 1990’s, who had it right? Who had a greater voice in advocating an aggressive fight against international terrorism, and Al Qaeda in particular, than Bill Clinton and his administration?

Well, the record shows that the GOP, future President Bush, and his entire future inner circle certainly weren’t deeply interested in fighting terrorism until 9/11. As much as Clinton’s policies towards terrorism may have been a failure, those who opposed him was even less interested in fighting terrorism.

Why were Bush and his people less interested than Clinton? Perhaps because, as Bush himself often stated during his campaign, they thought that the United States shouldn’t be the policeman of the world? Because they simply wanted to reverse all Clinton-era policies (and discount the opinions of Clinton holdovers) no matter how correct they may have been? Because they over-prioritized Iraq and Missile Defense and other unrelated issues? Hopefully we will find out.

Bush was only president for eight months before 9/11, but there are plenty of good documents that predate his inauguration and 9/11, so we have plenty to use to analyze his team’s commitment to fighting terror.

For example, The Project for the New American Century web site. PNAC is a political action group started pretty much by Bush’s entire inner circle (examples include Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard L. Armitage, Robert B. Zoellick, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, and many more!).

As you scour through page after page of this ‘visionary’ web site, it becomes painfully (or hilariously, depending on how you look at it) obvious how obsessed these people were with toppling Saddam and how completely oblivious they were with the threat of international terrorist organizations.

I tried to find articles written before 9/11 in which the PNAC team had something to say about terrorism. The closest thing I could find was this gem in which they ridicule the Clinton administration for focusing on non-governmental terrorist groups instead of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam:

“In spite of the fact that virtually every major act of terrorism over the past thirty years has been state-supported or state-directed, Americans and their elected officials continue to interpret the phenomenon as the violent, random deeds of the world’s lunatic fringe.”

I also found this 90 page document. It appears to be the PNAC’s 2000 “grand vision” for America’s national defense. It makes no mention at all of terrorist groups, except for this single sentence in which they criticize the staff levels on Naval vessels:

“When the USS Lincoln carrier battle group fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and suspected chemical weapons facilities in Sudan, it did so with 12 percent fewer people in the battle group than on the previous deployment.”

That’s it.

Check out the 2000 Republican Party Platform. It, too, only makes one mention of terrorism, and even then it is only tangentially:

“We need to address threats from both rogue states and terrorist group — whether delivered by missile, aircraft, shipping container, or suitcase. In this context, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is another anachronism of obsolete strategic thinking…”

Apparently that’s the entire scope of the GOP’s counterterrorism policy: In order to fight terrorists with suitcase bombs we need to scrap our nuclear treaties. (?!)

Now, compare the Republican platform to the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, in which terrorism is mentioned a dozen times, including this very specific objective in which Osama bin Laden is mentioned by name:

“Battling Terrorism. Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack. We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter-terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government. We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber-attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.”

I should point out that the GOP party platform is several times longer than the Democratic platform. You’d think that at least they could squeeze in a sentence or two. The Republicans not only didn’t seem to care about terrorism enough to do anything before 9/11, they didn’t seem to care enough to even talk about it.

This neglect extends into the Justice Department as well, as witnessed in the two documents I linked to above.

This evidence does not convince me that Bush could have prevented 9/11, nor should my presentation of this evidence be construed to mean that I believe that Bush could have prevented 9/11. It’s plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that neither Clinton nor Bush did enough to fight terrorism.

But this research has taught me that the Clinton administration was much more on top of the terrorism issue than I had previously thought. It is a striking contrast, too, with the way the Bush team has handled it. It’s almost as if the Bush Administration had, pre-9/11, made a concerted effort to excise the topic from their agenda! But why would they do such a thing? I can’t even imagine.

-Cf

Martin-

Gaelen, imagine a courtroom where the prosecuting attorney got to cross examine himself pretending to be you, that you were asked to respond to the cut and paste bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point? That’s really the game you’re proposing here.

Your analogy is a bit off there. Allow me to illustrate….

STEP 1) Clarke makes statements about Bush

STEP 2) Admin. disagrees with Clarke by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that [they’d] already selected and skewed to prove [their] point.”

STEP 3) Clarke disagrees with Admin. by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point.”

Gaelen has asked you to create the following:

STEP 4) Martin disagrees with Clarke by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point.”

You have claimed that Step 4 is impossible, however, the existence of Steps 2 and 3 prove the possibility of Step 4. You seem to agree that, at least, step 2 was conducted well, hence you should have no difficulty in creating Step 4. I think many of us would be interested to see this Step 4.

Note: This challenge is specific, but not exlusive, to Martin. Replace the word “Martin” with your own name in Step 4 and have at it!

Martin, you really need to start doing a Google search before you make silly statements.

I remember hearing nothing from Reno about her so-called highest priority

Just search on reno & terrorism. There’s nothing to be scared of, it’s easy. :)

Here’s Reno defending Clinton’s anti-terrorism package that includes, “a beefed-up domestic airport security plan, improved security for U.S. military troops stationed overseas and more FBI agents.”

“Congressional Republicans are demanding to know where the Clinton administration plans to make cuts to fund the anti-terrorism program. And GOP critics claim the administration program is too much, too late, and contains many controversial proposals.”

That story is typical of the obstruction of Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts.

We already agree that before 9-11 terrorism wasn’t much on the map for either administration—don’t we?

No, Martin. We don’t. From the same search, here’s a State Dept. memo of an anti-terrorism summit in 1996.

I can’t found a single measure that President Bush took pre-9/11 to secure this country from a terrorist attack. Can you?

Stephen,

I think we were of the same mind and focus, as our two entries compliment one another. Thks for joining me in front of the firing squad.

I must say, I have much respect and sympathy for our pal Martin for his determination and pluck. For the sake of civil discourse, let’s hope he has backup on the way.

I guess I’ll be the one that points out that our fellow editors of the Red column/far right, have yet to weigh in on the Clarke controversy. In all sincerity, I am not trying to bait them. I’ll just assume that they would rather not argue petty indictments, thus acknowledging the credibility of Clarke’s assertions. They have my respect.

The night of the 60 Minutes interview, I was sure this debate would be the battle royale of WatchBlog, that would rage for weeks to come. However, there is a papable sense of resignation from the Right, and what follows are new voter polls and then, the March Job figures.

Lee, my point was precisely that in an atmosphere where other priorities got far more air time, I don’t’t remember ever hearing Reno talk much about terrorism (maybe you do—fine)—but that doesn’t change the fact that terrorism wasn’t public issue number one with a bullet for the Clinton administration. If it was such a big deal for Reno, we shouldn’t have to dredge through google for quotes. I’m sure you can find Ashcroft mentioning terrorism somewhere too, if google is the standard of evidence now.

Oh, Martin.

Here’s President Clinton in 1996:

“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,”

and also from 1996,

President Clinton will make it his “first order of business” at the economic summit to “focus the strength of the G-7 on the continuing fight against terrorism.”

And:

The U.S. will fight terrorism “on every front” by pursuing a three-part strategy, Clinton said. He outlined this strategy as: forming a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism as the goal, giving law enforcement officers “strong counter-terrorism tools,” and improving security in the nation’s airports and on airplanes.

Yep, Martin. Google must really bug you. It means there’s no way you can get away with your revisionist history.

And yes, I do remember Clinton and Reno talking about terrorism as their main focus since 1995. Unfortunately, the Republicans kept drowning it out with Whitewater, 47 murders in Arkansas, Vince Foster’s “murder” by Hillary, and a bunch of other moronic charges that they never did apologize for after the Clintons were exonerated of all of them (except the President’s cover-up of his extra-marital affair, of course).

And if you can find a quote of Ashcroft mentioning terrorism before 9/11, you’re dredging far deeper than page 1.